Joint Committee on the Draft Charities Bill

Joint Committee on the Draft Charities Bill First Report

1 Overview

1. The Joint Committee was appointed on 10 May 2004 to "consider and report on any draft Charities Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown" and to do so by the Government deadline of 30 September 2004. The deadline was not of our choosing, but within the time available we have been able to hold eight oral evidence sessions and have received over 350 pieces of written evidence. Lists of those who gave oral and written evidence appear on pages 173-5. We are grateful to all those who have shared their views with us. We were also ably assisted by our Specialist Advisers, Margaret Bolton and Professor Jean Warburton, to whom we record our thanks. Given our tight deadline, and in line with the nature of pre-legislative scrutiny, our report will concentrate on the key issues that we consider to be of most concern.

2. The charitable sector is a subset of the wider voluntary or not-for-profit sector. This wider sector encompasses mutual benefit organisations including cooperatives and credit unions and other non-profit distributing organisations which benefit only their members and not the wider public. It also encompasses organisations which are not eligible for charitable status because their primary purpose is to achieve a change in the law or public policy. The voluntary or not-for-profit sector is vast (comprising it is estimated over 500,000 organisations).[1] Some 569,000 people worked in the voluntary sector in Great Britain in 2002. This report is concerned solely with those voluntary or not-for-profit organisations which are charities and organisations with charitable, philanthropic and benevolent purposes, many of which raise funds from the public including campaign groups.

3. The charitable sector is vast and diverse, including grant-giving, grant-receiving and fund-raising charities of all sizes, and covering a huge range of issues and interests. There are an estimated 188,739 charities in England and Wales registered with the Charity Commission.[2] According to Charity Commission figures, the total annual income of 'main' registered charities exceeds £32 billion. Whilst the largest 471 charities (just 0.29% of those on the register) represent 45% of the total income, almost two thirds of charities actually have an income of £10,000 or less.[3] The chart on the next page shows the range of subjects that just the top 500 fund-raising charities deal with.
Income of the top 500 fund-raising charities, by sector, 2001

4. The Committee recognises the huge diversity of the sector and has been particularly concerned to hear from the many smaller voluntary-run local charities during the course of our inquiry. Our desire here has been to protect charities - and in particular smaller charities - from unnecessary or ill-judged interference or bureaucracy while giving them the prospect of growing if that is in keeping with their wishes.

5. The Committee pays tribute to the vital work that charities perform. We strongly believe that charitable endeavour continues to be the cornerstone of a caring society comprised of active citizens. Charities are valued as organisations independent of Government. We would like to see charities playing an even bigger role and believe that many have the potential to contribute to the modernisation of public services and the enhancement of civic responsibility. Our assessment of the Bill and the recommendations we make are based on a desire to see charities - and charitable endeavour and income - grow, not diminish, in our country.

6. We welcome the importance the Government attaches to the role of the charitable and wider voluntary sector. The draft Bill has been widely welcomed in the sector. The Committee believes that reform and modernisation of charity law is long overdue.

7. Current charity law dates back centuries. It is based on a body of case law and operates within the regulatory framework of the Charities Acts of 1992 and 1993. To be charitable, an organisation must have purposes that are exclusively charitable and it must be established for public benefit. The legal concept of a charitable purpose has been developed by the courts over several centuries and is based on the preamble to the Charitable Uses Act 1601. This Act does not contain a definition of charity but a list of the purposes that were then considered charitable. New purposes are considered charitable if they are analogous to one of the purposes listed in the preamble. In 1891, Lord McNaghten grouped charitable purposes into four divisions: the relief of poverty; the advancement of religion; the advancement of education; and other purposes beneficial to the community.[4] The first three heads of charitable purpose are currently presumed to be for the benefit of the public, but for the other purposes within the fourth head public benefit must be proved.

8. Some sporting organisations and organisations promoting recreation are recognised as charitable under the Recreational Charities Act 1958. The Charities Act 1992 gave greater powers to the Charity Commission, the charity regulator, and set out powers to control fund-raising. The Charities Act 1992, except the fund-raising provisions, was consolidated with the Charities Act 1960 in the Charities Act 1993.

9. Those organisations recognised as charities are able to take advantage of valuable tax concessions, as are donors to charities. Charities are normally subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Charity Commission. There is presently no structure or legal form which is reserved solely for charities; and in practice charities are usually trusts or unincorporated associations, companies limited by guarantee, industrial or provident societies.

10. Our Committee's proceedings are the latest phase in a process of consultation on charity law that formally began in 2001. In July 2001, the Prime Minister commissioned his Strategy Unit to carry out a review of the law and regulation of charities and not-for-profit organisations. Their review, Private Action, Public Benefit, was published in September 2002.[5] It made 61 recommendations, including proposals to modernise charity law, improve the range of legal forms available, develop greater accountability and ensure effective regulations. Not all of these proposals required legislative change.

11. The Charity Commission response, published in November 2002, welcomed the Strategy Unit's report and confirmed their support for the majority of its proposals, including the proposal to trade directly. The Government published its response in July 2003, following consultation.[6] It accepted all but one of the main recommendations, rejecting the proposal that charities should be allowed to trade directly. The draft Charities Bill was published by the Home Office on 27 May 2004.[7]

12. The draft Bill seeks to legislate on a range of issues, the majority of which were first proposed in the Strategy Unit report. These include expanding the list of charitable purposes, removing the presumption of public benefit, defining the role of the Charity Commission, establishing a new Charities Appeal Tribunal to hear appeals against Charity Commission decisions, introducing a new legal form for charities and regulating public charitable collections. The detailed proposals within the draft Bill will be explored in more depth in chapters 4 to 10.

13. There are also a number of general issues that we consider should be investigated in further detail. We examine these issues in the remainder of this chapter. These include the draft Bill's purpose, how its success will be measured and whether it will aid charitable giving. We consider the legislation's costs and benefits and its impact on small charities in particular. Finally, given the recent publication of a draft Bill on charities in Scotland, we look at how effectively legislation on charities will work across the UK.

Clarity of purpose

14. Our primary concern is to ensure the draft Bill will deliver workable legislation that will enhance the role charities play in society. The majority of evidence we have received welcomes the draft Bill, despite significant criticism of some of its provisions. However, we remain concerned that the Government's case for the draft Bill will be compromised unless there is greater clarity about the objectives against which its success can be gauged. In order to be meaningful the effect of legislation must - insofar as is practicable - be measurable; in order to be measurable it must have clear objectives.

15. The Government has put forward a range of reasons for the draft Bill. In the press release to accompany its publication, they stated that the draft Bill contained proposals to "boost public confidence in charities, help new and existing charities to work effectively, ensure that donations are used properly and abuses are dealt with quickly and firmly". It contended that the UK's charity law is "in need of urgent modernisation" and that the legislation forms part of the "Government's drive to help local people shape their communities and take the initiative in solving problems and driving forward civil renewal".[8] In separate written evidence to the Committee, we were told that the "main purpose of the legislation is to create a modern legal and regulatory environment that encourages a vibrant and diverse charitable sector" and that its success could be measured against the aims of the Strategy Unit's report.[9]

16. In oral evidence, Fiona Mactaggart MP, the Minister responsible for the draft Bill, told the Committee that:

"there will be a substantial benefit to all the charities about achieving a more robust protection of the concept of charity, the 'charity brand'".[10]

"I think the purpose of the Bill, the fundamental purpose of the Bill, is to protect from the risk of decline"

"the best time to protect a brand is when it is still all right, not when it is seriously at risk".[11]

17. At the same time, the Minister suggested that the draft Bill might not just protect against decline, but actually increase public confidence. She proposed that the Government would use research to assess whether "the public perception of charity is stronger and more confident".[12] A further objective was to "get rid of the bits of regulation which have proved a barrier to the little charities in particular".[13]

18. We have taken into account a paper from Professor Nicholas Deakin drawing attention to experience in the United States where some scandals have damaged the public image of charities. He cites research by the Brookings Institute:

"Confidence slipped when charities were slow to respond after 9/11 and it has been battered in past years by scandals. The news media have delved into lavish spending at some of the nation's leading philanthropies, improper payments at the United Way of the National Capitol Area, conflicts of interest at the Nature Conservancy and the firing of new YWCVA president …. after just six months in the job. In turn the stories have sparked legislative investigations and calls for tighter regulation…..

"public confidence [in the US] is declining 'during a period in which confidence in virtually every other civic institution went up'. Brookings' October 2003 survey … shows significant public doubts about 'how charitable organisations deliver services, help people, work and spend money'. It concludes: 'the public has come to believe that substantial numbers of charitable organisations are either not doing well enough or not doing enough good'."[14]

19. We recognise the Minister's point that promoting trust is not something that should be done only when it has already been lost. However, the Government's stated aim to boost public confidence in charities comes at a time when opinion polls show that public trust is already very high. Research undertaken by the consultants nfpSynergy in 2003 found that public confidence in charities has actually risen by a substantial 25% since the 1990s. Charities are considered the third most trustworthy institution (out of 16), beaten only by the Armed Forces and schools. At present, they are significantly more trusted than the church, royal family, civil service or Government.[15] In a research poll undertaken by nfpSynergy in 2002, over 70% of respondents said there were no other kinds of organisations that they would trust above charities, with only 5% of respondents suggesting that they would not trust UK charities to spend donations wisely.[16] Other research by the NCVO has shown 91% of respondents expressing respect for what charities do.[17] The Charity Law Association told us:

"What evidence is there that there has been a decrease [in public trust and confidence]?... Organisations that are trusted deeply in this country include charities, so the notion that more regulation will increase public confidence and trust in charities is, I think, erroneous".[18]

"what the Bill is seeking to do is to give statutory force to the practice the Charity Commission has adopted in an enlightened way over the last ten years".[19]

20. At a practical level, a number of witnesses suggested that the draft Bill, far from clarifying the law, actually makes it more complicated. Scotland is also currently planning an overhaul of its charity law and intends to repeal all its existing provisions and bring forward a new consolidated Act. By contrast, 35 of the 48 clauses in the draft Bill amend or add to the existing Charities Act of 1992 and 1993. This makes it difficult to understand the draft Bill on its own, as charity law would be contained in a number of different statutes, rather than one consolidated version. As a result, the way the current Bill is drafted has been described as "highly inaccessible, in particular for smaller charities with little experience".[20] We explore this issue further in paragraphs 381-6.

21. The imprecise rationale behind the draft Bill is again evident in the vague means by which the Government intends to assess its impact. In written evidence, the Government told us:

"whilst there are a number of provisions within the draft Bill that would have quantifiable indicators against which the success of the legislation can be judged, many of the provision would not have an immediately measurable effect… for many of the provisions it would be difficult to claim that the Bill's specific contribution to the growth and development of the sector, or the public's confidence in it, could be measured in isolation from other influencing factors".[21]

22. We do not consider this approach to be satisfactory. In oral evidence, the Minister expanded upon the approach to monitoring the effects of the legislation by proposing that a range of different measurements would be taken. These would include monitoring the take-up of the new Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO), the number of mergers, growth in the charity sector, the effectiveness of the regulation of charitable collections and data from the new Charity Appeals Tribunal.[22] We look for greater clarity about the practical means by which the Government will measure the impact of the Bill. We would have welcomed greater consistency about its key aims.

Effect on charitable giving

23. In its press release to accompany the publication of the draft Bill, the Government proposed that one of its intentions is to increase charitable giving: "By building confidence we can motivate people to connect with charities and give their time, talents and money in ways that will benefit the whole community".[23] Some measures within the draft Bill have been praised for helping to maintain, if not necessarily increase, charitable giving. The RNID suggested that "proposals for self-regulation of the sector, especially face-to-face fund-raising, will further serve to maintain public support for charitable giving".[24] As the chart on the next shows, more than a third of charitable income comes from individuals.Income of general charities, by source, 2001/02

Note: Grants from charitable trusts are defined as coming from the voluntary sector. Income from individuals includes earned income (sales, membership subscriptions with benefits, and fees for services provided) and voluntary income (individual donations, covenants, legacies and membership subscriptions without benefits).

24. Concerns have been raised, however, that the draft Bill does not make a sufficient distinction between the levels of regulation required for grant-receiving charities and that required for grant-making charities. This, it is suggested, may deter philanthropic activities. We have heard from The Rayne Foundation that, "the Bill in its present form will add to the disincentives for wealthy individuals to add funds to existing trusts and foundations or to set up new ones".[25] The Charity Law Association told us that private charitable foundations currently face difficulties by being "sometimes subject to inappropriate regulatory approaches" by the Commission, in relation, for example, to the choice of their trustees. They note that the Charity Commission "has not been given an objective of encouraging charitable giving, with the concomitant objective of not discouraging such giving by disproportionate regulation. Such an objective may, we suggest, be useful".[26]

25. We have taken into account the recent report Why Rich People Give by Philanthropy UK, which refers to a widespread feeling of unhappiness about the status and respect given to philanthropy in the UK.[27] It urges the Home Office to use the opportunity of the Bill to show those with substantial means that they are needed and will be welcome as partners in strengthening civil society. It calls for the Charity Commission to continue its programme of simplification of guidelines and procedure, promote a simplified form of charitable trust and encourage the use of foundations.

26. Support for the inclusion of a 'philanthropy objective' for the Charity Commission is echoed by the Nuffield Foundation, who also raise concerns that the burden of regulation and bureaucracy may discourage wealthy donors from establishing charitable foundations. They propose that this problem could be tackled by giving the Commission a duty to ensure that its regulation is "reasonable, proportionate and fair".[28] Similar views have been put forward by the Association of Charitable Foundations[29] and Bates, Wells and Braithwaite.[30]In response to these concerns the Minister herself proposed that the Charity Commission be given an additional objective under clause 5 to "to increase the willingness to give", adding that "I think that would be actually a good objective to give to the Charity Commission and I think doing that might meet your concern".[31]This issue is further explored in paragraph 139.

Costs and benefits

27. The Government has set out their schedule of the estimated costs and benefits of their proposals in their draft Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA). In August 1998 the Prime Minister announced that no policy proposal, which has an impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies, should be considered by Ministers without an RIA being carried out. An effective RIA should provide a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of a policy proposal in order to facilitate assessment of the overall merits of the proposal. The Cabinet Office has drafted detailed guidance as to how it should be undertaken in Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessment.

28. Contrary to this Cabinet Office guidance, many of the benefits listed in the RIA are vague and are not quantified. The benefit of provisions on public collections, for instance, is described as "to [increase] public confidence in charitable collections and, therefore, … charity income". The benefit described for changes to the Charity Commission is "to enhance confidence in the effectiveness and accountability of the regulator".[32] These loosely worded 'benefits' confirm our concern that the draft Bill's effectiveness is undermined by unconvincing rationale. Cabinet Office guidance states that "The benefits should be quantified as far as possible".[33] We are disappointed that this guidance was not complied with.

29. Local authorities have been given a duty under the draft Bill to issue and enforce permits for charitable collections. The Local Government Association (LGA) and Bates, Wells and Braithwaite told us that they believed the Home Office's estimate of how much this would cost local authorities was incorrect.[34] The RIA itself states that "We have limited information on the costs to the local authorities of administering the current system of licensing" and later told us "no comprehensive data is available in this area".[35] We were told by the LGA that the Home Office had agreed to undertake work with them to identify the real costs of the legislation.[36] We are disappointed that this was not undertaken prior to publication of the RIA, but look forward to seeing a more accurate assessment of the financial implications for local authorities in the RIA to accompany the real Bill.

30. A number of witnesses also questioned whether the full range of the Charity Commission's new duties had been taken into account in the RIA. Harbottle and Lewis LLP did not think the RIA had noted the costs to the Commission of its increased workload in assessing public benefit, conducting a review of the charity register or regulating CIOs.[37] The Charity Law Association estimated that an additional £250,000 per annum would be needed for the Commission to carry out its rolling public character review.[38]

31. The Charity Commission have not told us that additional funds are required. Their Spending Review 2004 settlement provides an additional £2m for 2004-05 over the previous year but no further increase in the subsequent two years. The Home Office notes that the Bill will involve one-off costs for the Commission of £1.7 million and annual recurring costs of £1.02 million, but assumes that the Commission will absorb the effects of the implementation of the Bill by reallocating resources internally.[39] In oral evidence, the Commission witnesses admitted that if they worked in the way they currently do there would probably not be the capacity to register an estimated 13,000 additional excepted and exempt charities, as required by the draft Bill. However, they added: "[we] have begun to modernise ourselves within the Commission… I think we can learn not just from the charitable sector but also from all sorts of private and public regulation on all the practices which would involve the deployment of our resources more effectively to encompass that".[40] We make a recommendation about this issue in paragraph 215. In spite of these assurances we believe that the RIA, published with the real Bill, should provide a comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits of all provisions.

Impact on small charities

32. Well over half of the charitable sector (by income) is composed of small charities, run on budgets of less than £10,000 a year and often staffed by unpaid volunteers. We were particularly concerned that the legislation should encourage, rather than discourage, the establishment and success of these charities. The chart below shows these smaller charities form the larger share of the charitable sector. Small charities are affected by the majority of the provisions in the Bill. Many provisions which enable trustees, for example, the power to allow payment to trustees (discussed in chapter 7) will be beneficial. The Charitable Incorporated Organisation (considered in chapter 6) will provide small charities with a simple form for limited liability.Proportion of registered main charities in England and Wales by income, 2003

33. On the whole, the evidence we have received suggests that many small charities welcome provisions in the draft Bill, although there are differences of opinion about whether the measures go far enough. Most organisations have supported the proposed raising of the threshold above which charities must register with the Charity Commission, from £1,000 to £5,000.[41] Some others have proposed that this should be increased still further to £10,000, as recommended in the Strategy Unit report.[42] The existing provision that there is no need for independent examination of accounts if gross income is below £10,000 has met with approval.[43] Others suggest this threshold should be increased because it imposes costs on those charities whose income is just above £10,000, "which are proportionately greater than larger charities".[44] The new legal form of the Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO) has been welcomed as helping "small charities which are growing and wanting to incorporate",[45] although others have suggested that they would be cautious about seeing how it operates before considering adopting it.[46]

34. Similarly, we have heard different views about the level of regulation small charities are currently subject to, and the impact that the draft Bill might have on this. We have heard regulation by the Charity Commission described as "light touch".[47] Others believe that it has been over-burdensome, describing a local group review by the Charity Commission as being "totally over the top for the kind of work which happens on a very local, village basis".[48] The British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV) raised the concern that "heavy handed regulation will cause many more [trustees] to refuse to serve than already do so", but "broadly" thought that "the draft Bill gets the balance about right for small charities".[49] It is notable that the Chief Executive of the National Association of Councils for Voluntary Service (NACVS) felt that the barriers to small charities working effectively with minimum labour "are not to do with charity regulation, but to do with health and safety, food hygiene, the Criminal Records Bureau, the demands of local authorities".[50] We deal with the case for different regulatory treatment for small organisations from paragraph 119 onwards.

35. We heard from the Churches Main Committee that "a certain amount of publicity will need to accompany any change so that people actually operating small charities know what they are, and what they are not, expected to do".[51] Similarly, Religions Working Together highlighted their desire for clarity and certainty: "I think people certainly in the religious communities will probably be able to accommodate whatever is proposed as long as we understand what they are".[52] It is vital that smaller charities in particular, who may not easily have access to legal advice, are able to clearly understand what the legislation intends to do and how they can comply with the requirements it would place upon them.

Compatibility of UK charity legislation

Scotland

36. The draft Charities Bill covers only England and Wales, as the regulation of charities is a devolved issue for both Scotland and Northern Ireland. The draft Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill was published by the Scottish Executive on 2June 2004 and seeks to "update and strengthen charity law".[53] The deadline for consultation with the public was 21 August 2004, after which the draft Bill will go to the Scottish Parliament's Communities Committee for scrutiny. We note that key elements of the proposed Scottish legislation may undergo change in light of this scrutiny and therefore new issues may well arise after we have published our report.

37. Scotland already possesses a different system of regulation for charities than in England and Wales. We do not question the appropriateness of the UK and Scottish Parliaments making their own decisions regarding charity regulation. Our main concern is to ensure that the many charities operating across Britain do not face an onerous regulatory burden under two very different systems, and that the two Bills do not contradict each other by creating different definitions of a charity. We held a video conference with the members of the Scottish Parliament's Communities Committee on this issue during the course of our enquiry.

38. The draft Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill shares many of the key principles of the draft Charities Bill and its consultation document states that "where it makes good sense for our measures to fit with the approach being taken in England and Wales, we have sought to ensure our proposals complement theirs".[54] We have been encouraged to hear that the Home Office and Scottish Executive have liaised to try to minimise potential problems. There are, however, a number of differences between the two draft Bills. The key areas include: variations in the list of charitable purposes; Scotland having no minimum registration threshold compared with England and Wales; all charities in Scotland being required to register with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR); the removal of excepted and exempt status from charities in Scotland; variations in accounting and fund-raising registration requirements; and no proposals for trustee remuneration in Scotland.

39. Some of these differences will not cause insurmountable problems. We do consider, however, that the definition of a charity is one area where inconsistency could prove particularly problematic. At present, the Scottish draft Bill's definition of a charity is broadly similar to that in the draft Charities Bill for England and Wales, relying on a list of charitable purposes and the concept of public benefit. However, the draft Charities Bill contains a list of 12 charitable purposes compared with the Scottish draft Bill's list of 13 and some purposes are phrased differently or contain a slightly different emphasis. Clause 2(2)(j) of the draft Charities Bill, for instance, talks about "the relief of those in need, by reason of youth, age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage". In the Scottish draft Bill the comparable sub-section is divided into two different purposes, detailing the "provision of accommodation" and the "provision of care"; the categories of those in need are also different. Clause 2(2)(f) cites that a charitable purpose is the "advancement of the arts, heritage or science". The corresponding provision in the Scottish draft Bill is the "the advancement of arts, heritage, culture or science".[55]

40. The Charity Law Association has expressed concern about the "minor discrepancies between the wording of purposes listed in the Bill and those listed in the Scottish Bill", suggesting that "it would be counterproductive for there to be potential for charitable purposes in Scotland and England/Wales to be different".[56] Equally, at present neither draft Bill contains a statutory definition of the public benefit test, but this is one of the key matters open for consultation in Scotland. It is not inconceivable that one Bill could ultimately contain a more restrictive definition of public benefit than the other. It would be an issue of some consternation if UK based charities were required to meet different criteria for achieving charitable status in different parts of the UK, or if some organisations were considered charities in one part of the UK but denied charitable status in another.

41. We recommend that the Government consult the Scottish Executive on the implications for national charities of any differences between the two draft Bills, with the aim of avoiding anomalies and confusion.

Wales

42. Concerns have been raised that assumptions made by the Government about the powers to award financial assistance to charities in Wales may not be accurate. Clause 44 of the draft Bill allows the Secretary of State to "give financial assistance by way of grants or loans to any charitable, benevolent or philanthropic institute whose operations are carried [out] wholly or mainly in England". The explanatory notes to this clause states: "This power extends only to such organisations which operate wholly or mainly in England. Government funding of similar organisations operating in Wales is devolved to the National Assembly for Wales".[57] In written evidence, the Government told us that Wales has been omitted from this provision because the National Assembly for Wales already has a duty under s.114 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 to make a scheme specifying how it will provide assistance to voluntary organisations in Wales. Under s.85, the Assembly has its own power to give assistance of that sort.[58]

43. We have heard, however, from the Wales Council for Voluntary Action that s.85 is not in fact used for this purpose, as "internal Assembly legal advice has precluded the use of this section [s.85] in a manner similar to that now intended by cl.44 [of the draft Bill]".[59] They suggest that while "it is not unreasonable for the Home Office to have made the objective assumption that s.85 afforded a similar funding power to that created by cl.44 in practice, this is not the case".[60] It does not seem to be the intention of the Government to create anything other than parity between the financial assistance available to charities in England and Wales.

44. In light of evidence we have received, we recommend that the Government re-examine the provisions of the Government of Wales Act 1998 to ensure that charities in Wales will receive comparable financial assistance to charities in England.

45. We now move on to a detailed assessment in the chapters that follow of the key issues that have come to our attention during the course of our inquiry.

1 Strategy Unit Private Action, Public Benefit, September 2002, para 15 Back

2 Of which 165,131 are 'main' charities; the remainder are subsidiaries or branches of other charities. As at 31 March 2004, Charity Commission Annual Report, 2003/4, p1 Back

3 As at 31 March 2004, Charity Commission Annual Report, 2003/4, p1 Back

4 Income Tax Special Purpose Commissioners v Pemsel [1891] AC 531 Back

5 Private Action, Public Benefit, Strategy Unit, September 2002 Back

6 Charities and Not-for-Profits: A Modern Legal Framework, July 2003 Back

7 Cm. 6199 Back

8 Home Office press release, 27 May 2004, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs3/charitiesbill_pressnote040527.pdf Back

9 Ev 296, para 4 Back

10 Q967 (Ms Mactaggart MP) Back

11 Q976 and Q967 (Ms Mactaggart MP) Back

12 Q972 (Ms Mactaggart MP) Back